San Francisco Passes One-Size-Fits-All Flavor Ban, Condemns Smokers to Status Quo

Status
Not open for further replies.

noevilstar

Senior Member<br>CASAA Board Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2013
324
650
Union City, NJ
casaa.org
(View on CASAA.org - San Francisco Passes One-Size-Fits-All Flavor Ban, Condemns Smokers to Status Quo - CASAA )

The ink is barely dry on amendments accepted during San Francisco’s Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee hearing and the full Board of Supervisors has passed the ordinance that bans the sale of flavored vapor products, tobacco products, and menthol cigarettes. The new law takes effect in April 2018.

To say that San Francisco’s decision to ban flavored vapor products is disappointing would be an understatement and minimizes the real impact of this horrible miscalculation. Whereas at least some study has gone into prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes, there is no evidence to suggest that banning low-risk nicotine products will benefit anyone. In fact, it is reasonable to infer from emerging data that banning flavored vapor and smoke-free tobacco products will send some people back to smoking while discouraging others from quitting. At the very least, banning flavored vapor products will delay quit-attempts resulting in an unnecessary harm to San Francisco’s smoking population.

Rather than consider innovative new ways to address the disease and early death attributed to smoking, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has, instead, opted to experiment on their constituents with an untested policy. We need to emphasize that banning low-risk, smoke-free products is NOT based on evidence. This was purely an emotional decision.

The pace at which this ordinance was driven through San Francisco’s legislative process also indicates that very little deliberation took place. Zero consideration was given to city vape shop owners, who likely have thousands of quit-smoking stories to their credit. Even less consideration was given to individual consumers who shared their testimonials with the Public Safety Committee.

San Francisco has done a shameful thing, but there is still time to fix it. In the months leading up to implementing the flavor ban, there is still an opportunity to pass an exemption for low-risk tobacco and nicotine products. Considering the rate at which studies about tobacco harm reduction are emerging, it is possible we will have more evidence to support an exemption. Unfortunately, while we wait for the Board of Supervisors to come to their senses, hundreds of San Francisco residents will continue to smoke past a point where switching to a low-risk alternative could have saved their lives.

You can find the contact information for the SF Board of Supervisors here.

____________________________________

 

Tonee N

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 24, 2017
4,459
9,789
Nevada
  • Deleted by retired1
  • Reason: Drug talk is not permitted on ECF. This is not open for debate.

Beamslider

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 29, 2017
3,895
11,502
San Francisco
  • Deleted by retired1
  • Reason: Drug talk is not permitted on ECF. This is not open for debate.

Verb

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 26, 2014
1,563
2,114
Eastern, PA, USA
Will the city employ a tobacco flavor expert? Will they actually use the tobacco product to determine if it had a characteristic flavor other than tobacco? Not sure if that would be OSHA compliant.

If they are using the aroma clause how are they to be certain they are not smelling their own upper lip?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacTechVpr

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,315
1
83,843
So-Cal
... Zero consideration was given to city vape shop owners, who likely have thousands of quit-smoking stories to their credit. Even less consideration was given to individual consumers who shared their testimonials with the Public Safety Committee.
...

I think this Pretty Much Sums it Up.

:facepalm:
 

90VG

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 19, 2016
626
1,454
5000' in Nevada
  • Deleted by retired1
  • Reason: Nope, still not appropriate for this thread.

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I believe most mainstream cigarette brands use some food flavoring to homogenize the taste of the product. If I'm right SF is only banning flavorings they know about and not flavorings they don't know about.

Info about cig additives. I'm at work can't read this right now.
List of additives in cigarettes - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MacTechVpr

Verb

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 26, 2014
1,563
2,114
Eastern, PA, USA
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I believe most mainstream cigarette brands use some food flavoring to homogenize the taste of the product. If I'm right SF is only banning flavorings they know about and not flavorings they don't know about.

Info about cig additives. I'm at work can't read this right now.
List of additives in cigarettes - Wikipedia

Correct. The use of flavoring is permitted. The product cannot have a "characterizing flavor" other than tobacco. This seems to permit unflavored; where the proposed NJ flavor ban requires clove, method, or tobacco to be the "characterizing flavor".
 

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
Correct. The use of flavoring is permitted. The product cannot have a "characterizing flavor" other than tobacco. This seems to permit unflavored; where the proposed NJ flavor ban requires clove, method, or tobacco to be the "characterizing flavor".
This will encourage a lot of SF vapers to mix. That's a good thing.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,315
1
83,843
So-Cal
This will encourage a lot of SF vapers to mix. That's a good thing.

Yeah... That might be a Good Thing.

But I wonder how many SF Smokers won't be to able to Successfully Switch without being able to buy Flavored e-Liquids at a B&M?
 

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
Yeah... That might be a Good Thing.

But I wonder how many SF Smokers won't be to able to Successfully Switch without being able to buy Flavored e-Liquids at a B&M?
Vaping will demolish a business that does $800- trillion dollars world wide and most of that goes to governments. It's going to be a long war.
 

Beamslider

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 29, 2017
3,895
11,502
San Francisco
Yeah... That might be a Good Thing.

But I wonder how many SF Smokers won't be to able to Successfully Switch without being able to buy Flavored e-Liquids at a B&M?

I'm in SF and thinking about mixing myself. Actually not because of this regulation. I already buy most of the e-juice online anyway as it is a lot cheaper than walking into a vape store here and walking out with it. Most are overpriced.

As an example for you on brands that are wide spread. A lot of vape stores in SF charge $25 to $29 plus 8.75% tax for 30 ml of halo, you can order direct from halo for $22. A lot of them charge $26 to $35 plus 8.75% tax for a 60 ml bottle of Naked 100, you can order them online from vapesociety for $13 to $17 depending on the deal they are running.

I do believe in supporting local vendors, but not if they plan on ripping me off. There is one that I buy from part of the time. I used to buy cigarettes there as they sell them as well and they gave me a good deal on cigs and while the charge $25 for a 60ml of the naked 100 I like, they sell it to me for $18 out the door. So I support them.
 

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
I'm in SF and thinking about mixing myself. Actually not because of this regulation. I already buy most of the e-juice online anyway as it is a lot cheaper than walking into a vape store here and walking out with it. Most are overpriced.

As an example for you on brands that are wide spread. A lot of vape stores in SF charge $25 to $29 plus 8.75% tax for 30 ml of halo, you can order direct from halo for $22. A lot of them charge $26 to $35 plus 8.75% tax for a 60 ml bottle of Naked 100, you can order them online from vapesociety for $13 to $17 depending on the deal they are running.

I do believe in supporting local vendors, but not if they plan on ripping me off. There is one that I buy from part of the time. I used to buy cigarettes there as they sell them as well and they gave me a good deal on cigs and while the charge $25 for a 60ml of the naked 100 I like, they sell it to me for $18 out the door. So I support them.
I vape 7ml per day so a 60ml bottle would last me a bit shy of 9 days. My cost of DIY ingredients for a year is $25.
 
  • Like
Reactions: element77

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,315
1
83,843
So-Cal
...

As an example for you on brands that are wide spread. A lot of vape stores in SF charge $25 to $29 plus 8.75% tax for 30 ml of halo, you can order direct from halo for $22. A lot of them charge $26 to $35 plus 8.75% tax for a 60 ml bottle of Naked 100, you can order them online from vapesociety for $13 to $17 depending on the deal they are running.

...

Yeah... Prop 56 didn't do CA Retailers any favors either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verb

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,315
1
83,843
So-Cal
They don't like it but not much they can do about it. If it manages to go thru most will just stock up before April 2018 or buy from out of the city. Only the vape shop owners will be hurt and they are really the only vocal ones about it.

Gotcha.

So no Organized Resistance that you know of to all this?
 

Beamslider

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 29, 2017
3,895
11,502
San Francisco
As for policing it....There will no doubt be some places where they sell it under the counter to people they know, happens.

But for the cigarettes and tobacco they will be able to a lot easier. Most of the places the cigs are stocked by the big tobacco distributor and the seller just gets a cut of the price set by the distributor, they will comply and won't supply them to the shops.

Also if tax is involved as it is, they are audited making it harder to no comply. Back when the tax went up on tobacco, the distributors had to inventory the stock in all the shops they supplied and provide it to the state along with invoices to show how many had old tax stamps. They then had to pay the new tax on the packages with the old stamps.

But since this is just SF and the city is only 11 miles by 11 miles, anyone can go to Daly City and buy whatever they want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread